© Scandia 2014 http://www.tidskriftenscandia.se The politics of talk Rumour and gossip in Stockholm during the struggle for succession (c.1592–1607) Piia Einonen Introduction In 1602, Stockholm’s City Court (rådstugurätt) had the city’s pillory moved to the central marketplace to the accompaniment of high-flown phrases: ‘May God let law and justice be within the city and the city walls and not without, then everything will be done right, for where sins are punished, there is God honoured and praised.’1 This demonstration of power and justice was intended to remind the Stockholmers of their role as loyal, obedient, and God-fearing subjects, and marked the end of a restless decade. This article concentrates on the turbulent years of 1592–1607, and argues that gossip was not only an important element in social interaction, but also a form of political involvement and resistance for those without formal power. The political situation in Sweden was in turmoil in the late sixteenth century. King Johan III died in 1592, and his son Sigismund ascended to the Swedish throne. Sigismund’s position was difficult, however, because through his mother, Katarina Jagellonica (Catherine Jagiellon), he had also inherited the Polish Crown in 1587, and he reigned in Poland until 1632. In Sweden he was crowned Sigismund III Vasa. His Catholicism created problems in Sweden, whose rulers had striven to consolidate the Lutheran faith. Sigismund’s main opponent in Sweden was his uncle, Duke Karl. As a son of Gustav I Vasa, Karl insisted that he was the lawful successor to his brother, Johan III. He justified his claim with both political and religious arguments, and thus the ensuing conflict not only concerned the succession, but also had wider implications. This is why the struggle affected Swedish society so strongly—especially in the capital, Stockholm. In practice, Duke Karl managed to legitimize his status in 1599 and began to use the title Karl IX, but his coronation did not take place until 1607, the year that this study ends. Karl IX died in 1611 and was succeeded by his son, Gustav II Adolf (Gustavus Adolphus). Hearsay often played a central role in various kinds of criminal cases brought before the city court, but in this article I shall concentrate on political rumours, in particular those alleging the deaths of the king and © Scandia 2014 http://www.tidskriftenscandia.se 10 THE POLITICS OF TALK the duke, and on the city court’s repeated efforts to curb gossip-mongering. What kind of talk was labelled rumour or gossip, and who had the power to do this? Can rumour and gossip be distinguished from each other? What importance did location and time have for urban information flows? What was the informative and political significance of rumour and gossip in an early modern society? Gossip-mongering and rumour have been popular topics in European urban history, but they have rarely been seen integral to political culture, and our knowledge of early modern Swedish cities as centres of hearsay is meagre. From the political viewpoint it is essential to separate rumour from other information, since defining rumour in early modern cities was an exercise in power and authority, and gossip-mongers were tried in the city court. Gossip and rumour flourished in commercial cities like Stockholm. In the period considered here, however, the topics of gossip were far from the usual tittle-tattle. Where it usually concerned crime, criminals, and people living somehow on the fringes of society, in the late 1590s peopled talked about Duke Karl, Sigismund, and their supporters. Presumably, kings and their doings were a constant topic in alehouses and similar public spaces, but it has rarely left any traces in the source material. Thus this article offers a unique insight into the political rumour and gossip that circulated in Stockholm at the time.2 The source material consists of the court records of Stockholm City Court, supplemented with the few surviving letters from the correspondence between the city court and Karl and Sigismund.3 After these turbulent years, very few accusations of political rumour-mong- ering—and none concerning kings—can be found in the sources in the first half of the seventeenth century. This is probably due to less meticu- lous surveillance compared with the reign of the wary Karl. But as the bureaucratization of Stockholm’s city government gradually intensified, it led to a general narrowing in the possibilities of interaction between the office-holders and burghers, emphasizing patriarchal power relations. Increased moral, religious, administrative, and economic surveillance was extended to everyday life, and Stockholmers were disciplined into obedient subjects. As a result, the burghers’ political importance changed notably, and all further political talk in the form of rumour and gossip completely eluded the surveillance of the city court.4 SCANDIA 80:2 © Scandia 2014 http://www.tidskriftenscandia.se PIIA EINONEN 11 In the middle of this picture there is Gamla stan, the old town of Stockholm, which was the administrative, political and economic heart of the town, and at the same time also the centre of information as well as disinformation. ”Stockholm från öster”, Suecia antiqua et hodierna, första bandet, Kungliga biblioteket. Gossip and rumour in an early modern local community Definitions from above This study concentrates on political gossip and rumour. It is quite different from gossip—and slander—among neighbours, which has been the main focus of studies of urban information flows. Various researchers have distinguished between gossip and rumour by their targets. Gossip has been described as talk that requires an intimate knowledge of the subject, whereas rumour can concern anyone or anything.5 This view is present in modern everyday parlance, as we tend to understand rumours as presumed events on the wider stage, whether in national or local politics or public life in general, whereas gossip seems to refer to individual people and their scandalous behaviour. Even if a distinction is possible between rumour and gossip using such a definition, their functions were (and still are) essentially the same. Rumour was more likely to be political in nature, and it spread particularly fast in times of political uncertainty. It could touch upon subjects such as the struggle for power in Sweden in the late 1590s, when both Duke Karl and his nephew Sigismund claimed the Crown.6 Another example is provided by the city of Linköping, which was restless during the 1590s, and was a hotbed of rumour.7 Unrest easily built up and spread, and in situations which were felt to be threatening and dangerous the authorities were liable to attribute excessive significance to specific incidents. The topics discussed and what was actually said, the relationship between the gossiper and the person gossiped about, and the fact that it all took SCANDIA 80:2 © Scandia 2014 http://www.tidskriftenscandia.se 12 THE POLITICS OF TALK place out of the hearing of the subject have all been used to define gossip.8 Nevertheless, regardless of these definitions and characterizations, it is hard to argue that gossip was a distinct form of social exchange. Gossip offered information, but it was also functional as it enabled interaction in a society in which actions were based to a great extent on trust.9 The boundaries of gossiping were fuzzy at best, because the elements that were typical of gossip can be found in practically all forms of conversation. Moreover, the definition of gossip has rarely been questioned, and the fact that the nature of gossip is ultimately determined by the person who brands it as such has not been considered. As a subjective and cultural phenomenon, gossip might be defined as unofficial collective talk that violates the public image and reputation of an individual or a group by impugning their character or actions. This definition is even more apposite to an early modern society and community, in which communality, reputation, and honour constituted the basic norms of everyday life.10 Labelling talk as rumour and gossip was nevertheless an exercise in power, whether it was imposed by an individual citizen or the authorities.11 When the city court was hunting down gossips and striving to control the flow of (mis)information, it was using its institutional and legal power to govern and police Stockholm. The community’s internal order was to a great extent maintained by means of the authorities’ manipulative discourse. In official meetings, the inhabitants were ordered, advised, and persuaded to make all kinds of sacrifices for the common good, but in return their own opportunities to express themselves were tightly restricted and controlled.12 This was related to the idea of a harmonious urban community, in which talk needed to be controlled in order to avoid conflict. This striving to control what people said meant also policing foreigners of all kinds, who were often seen as sources of endless rumours. Gossip and rumour threatened both communal harmony and the national interest, and particularly so when the succession was in doubt. In defining gossip, the normative context—prevailing norms and val- ues—has often passed unnoticed, and thus temporal and spatial changes have been completely overlooked. Even if gossip itself has not altered, society, with all its formal and informal norms and values, is in constant flux.13 The Ten Commandments and the Bible generally were the basis for interpreting gossip-mongering as evil, and religious doctrine condemned gossip and misleading stories as sinful.14 This did not exactly equate with everyday conceptions and norms, but the religious condemnation contributed to the negative conception of gossip. Research on the phenomena of gossip and rumour, despite neglecting local communities, has drawn attention to their positive functions in society.15 SCANDIA 80:2 © Scandia 2014 http://www.tidskriftenscandia.se PIIA EINONEN 13 Rumour was an instrument of social control in cities, where people lived in close proximity to one another.